Added a couple pics of some of the wax glasses. They're dirty from being beaten around, but you get teh idea...

http://www.twistedinsomniac.com/mini35/

I read most parts of this thread today and started testing. The results are pretty promising to me. In the end, I'd like to make me a MF (6 x 6 cm) GG as a static variation of my 'double DV adapter' (never mind if you didn't notice my thread some time ago)

I made some changes in my test:
I used wax from a normal white candle, which works great so far.
I melted the wax on a piece of glass and put another piece on top (with spacers) and immediately put it on a beard-trimmer (with some paper in between) to vibrate the air out. It works.

The thing is, I didn't have enough time today to get all air out, so when I make some better tests, I'll post the results with images.

Today I got rid of all bubbles and got a perfect even layer of (candle) wax between two pieces of glass. I shot a very quick test (a bit shaken) with everything handheld and not zoomed in enough, but here is a frame-grab:

http://s01.picshome.com/a82/wax1.jpg

One thing happened: after a while the wax starts to crackle from one side, like it is coming off on one side of the glass. Anyone had this trouble before? Maybe it cooled off to quickly.

well now.... that's a nice "good morning"! Shoot something even lit and post it and we'll take it from there. So far, so good. (I will hold on "bravo")

Well, that's not so easy to do right now...but here is another test with a new GG (I used a mix of candle wax and very fine bee-wax):
http://s01.picshome.com/919/wax6.jpg

It's about 200% or more enlargement of a shot with a DV camcorder to show the sky: the grain you see is video noise.

Now I'm on to refining the GG (re-melting to get the air out and even the wax layer) and do the hard test Dan pointed out. I wanted to shoot a blue sky, but there were clouds today.

Use a fine marker and draw a 24/36 mm frame on the glass. It will help you position it in the center and see about vigneting. Otherwise, is good.
Try a still (2-3M pixel, if you have one handy) of the WG (wax glass) . That might help you see what the image would look like on a big display.

Tomorrow I'll test some more and try a still (Fuji s7000 6M pixel)
I keep getting the wax to crackle from the sides (sort of finger pattern). It comes off on one side of the glass so maybe I need to clean the glass more before pour the wax in.
The easiest way so far to get bubble free wax is to tape one side of the pieces of glass together, than form a sort of V with them and tape the bottom to hold that shape and seal it like a cup so you can pour in some wax.
Than hold it against an electric razor (trimmer) to vibrate all air to the surface.
Now you slowly flip the glass together and watch if the bubbles stay on top.
It works.

Here is another frame of a quick test:
http://s01.picshome.com/a82/wax2.jpg
It's a bit messy (enlarged too) but gives an idea.

If you would have had the pleasure to process your own films (chemistry and bath) you would have known that the same think happens when you move the film from a warm bath to a cold water (washing) bath..... due to rapid temp changes on a small footprint. But since you did not (maybe), take it from me. The sides get cold (er) sooner than the center of the glass. The wax shrinks unevenly. Inspect the outer and inner section of the shrunk area: if the out has them smaller and finer and the inner larger and fewer, than that is what happens. Try and place them in a warm (er) place to allow time for "even" cool-down, and see if that makes a diff. If it is small (and outside the usable frame) do not bother…

Thanks, I'll try it tomorrow, its two a clock at night here...
I do process my own films, but I never use anything warm, just wait longer.

I do process my own films, but I never use anything warm, just wait longer.
Good for you! That is a priceless experience. Good luck tomorrow.

OK, I have made some good progress today, also thanks to Diaconuanian tips.
I am making this wax GG for a 6 x 6 cm (medium format) lens. To get an even surface without crackles (so far....4 hours later) I came up with the simple solution to put the GG (with melted wax, bubble free) between two other pieces of glass of a normal temperature. Than the wax cools off perfectly in a mater of minutes.

Here's some photo's of the GG:
http://s01.picshome.com/bd9/waxgg1.jpg
http://s01.picshome.com/bd9/close.jpg (not perfect yet:some grain visible)

Today I used a mix of paraffine and bee wax.
The last problem that makes this GG not perfect is that after reheating to get the air out, the structure of the wax was visibly less fine.


EDIT:
Of course I get nice DOF with the (previous version) wax:
http://s01.picshome.com/bd9/new3.jpg (bad lighting, video noise)

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good job, Oscar!

I have also had problems with the glass & wax separating, as you describe. On occasion, I've had this take place not immediately, but a day or so after it was complete.

Before I quit messing with the 35mm adapters, I came to the conclusion that the best wax/glass combination was microcrystalline between two condensers. Here are the reasons:
- Less glass (only 2 condensers as opposed to 2 condensers & 2 filters)
- The thicker glass acts as an insulator to the wax
- If dust gets on the outside of the glass, it will be out of focus due to the thickness of the condensers.

If you have some condensers laying around (I got some cheap ones from SurplusShed.com), you may want to give it a try.

really impressive...

Thanks all..I tried to wright down the simple technique I used, but rather came up with a drawing (for 8+ kids):
http://s01.picshome.com/546/wax-method.jpg (probably need to zoom in to see the text)

I heat everything on an electric hot plate so i can easily reheat it when necessary. The thing that didn't work yet is to get all air out in one time, which is my aim, because the structure of the wax is about 2x finer before reheating.

I'll post new shots tomorrow. Frank, that's a good idea, but I need to find some condensers with one flat side to do that. Another option is to combine the GG with my anamorphic water prisms. That'll be something.

Sweeet Deal Oscar! I've been meaning to post on here also, but for the past few months, I've been in my own little world...heh. Now summer's here tho and i'm goin to sit down and get back to work on film equipment.

A far as progress goes, I'm sorta behind everyone. I tried the static ground glass lapped to 1500 grit as a simple start. Worked pretty good in good light. Anything dim or stopping down the 35mm lens made the grain unbearable. Here's something shot with it (warning: bad compression)

http://krabtownfilms.100free.com/trailer3.mov

I'm reaally interested in trying the wax technique. Oscar's method almost seems too easy. Also about my adapter, from what i could tell the lighting (hot spot) looked pretty damn even. I think I just got lucky, but maybe a one flat-sided condenser isn't really necessary. I just have a 10+ macro lens right in front of the ground glass, and on the other end of the tube is another macro from a .45x wide lens (not sure of the rating). This is slapped onto a VX2000 by the way. With my biggest lens this crap sticks out 9 inches though, so a rail system for support is a MUST. It was actually gaff taped together the whole time i filmed with it and it fell apart about 3 times :P. I also figured out an easy solution to LCD screen horiz/vert flipping for the VX2000, maybe i should post somewhere else.

One other note: The whole thing SUCKS in daylight. It looks great, but it's near impossible to pull focus and know what you're doing, since you can hardly make out an image on the flip out LCD and the viewfinder is upsidedown. Gotta figure out a solution to that problem too.

Haven't been around in a while, figured I'd stop by today and I see Oscar's keeping the dream alive. I'd like to see how footage through that wax sandwich looks as compared with 3 micron aluminum ox. I've got a lot of 5 micron footage up from interviews I've done recently (http://ideaspora.net/breadstuy.mov), and have since shot a lot of stuff with 3 micron glass. All of it looks very good to my eye, and even better to the eyes of someone not knowing to look for grain.

I wasn't ever able to get the wax solutions completely error free :(

Shoot some side-by sides for us Oscar and who knows, I just might have to break out what wax I've got left.

Good to hear from you wax fellows (Frank and Jim)!
Sorry Jim, I can't see your footage because of my limited internet connection, do you have a still frame?

I don't have a 3 micron glass to make a side by side comparison, but I'll post images of every good progress.
All I need to do is to get the wax bubble free the first time and don't have to melt it between the wax again.
It isn't worth much (didn't focus well and bad weather), but here is a last frame-grab, before I start on a new one:
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/newwax3.jpg

Oscar, once you perfect the "technology" let me know, and I might give you a hint about how to get rid of the "hot spot" (even if you are not German!...;-)<
Yes, it is possible! (did some tests in 1979)

To eliminate the hotspot, try to melt your wax between two condenser lenses - this is the way Movietube works.

dietmar

but not the only way........ (nor the best) hehehe

I thought using some 12 kilo condenser...about the size of a baseball, but if you have a better solution Dan, let me know...when I'm ready.

I have shot some better footage tonight, just a 500w soft-box, so a bit dark.
I put everything on my site:

http://doublecam.250free.com/

Once I improved the wax GG, I'll be filming the image with two DV camcorders and DIY anamorphic lens again to get a 1080 x 720 resolution. These tests are just normal (cheap)DV.

What happened? I saw better images (less grain) before. You are close.
The 12kg wouln't do, due to..... hmmmm... increased cost ;-)<
try a central grad ND filter. (that will "even out" the center with the corners)That is what they use in some wide lenses as well....(no magic and no strings attached)

Thank you, I'll try that as soon as I get one. If it works it would be magic to me.
I need to explain the images I posted. The grain is not the GG, but video noise because of the light loss. MF gives a lot of light loss. Footage of the chair (now on top: http://doublecam.250free.com/) was with sunlight. As long as I have the 58mm lens and the GG in one hand, focusing with my only other hand and pushing the camcorder to the GG with my nose...I can't get the settings on my DV as well as they should be.
So this was a test only for focusing.

Gorgeous! Keep on going Oscar. Looks very good. Now... show us something soft (so we can see if there is any grain in there....) same thing is OK but focus at MOD while the chair is farther away. Better yet, a wall (or sky) but soft focus. (I will not ask for candles...)

Thanks. OK tomorrow I'll climb on the roof and shoot the sky. Right now I can only present you stars and a moon. This weekend I'll make a new GG with and try it without remelting the wax.

Here is some first footage from my adventures on the roof:

http://s01.picshome.com/a48/roof1b.jpg

http://s01.picshome.com/a48/roof6.jpg

Don't look at the dust, remember I'm on the roof.

Don't look at the dust, remember I'm on the roof.

lol

Never thought this can be done by wax...

Oscar: Keep up the good work!

Also, the hotspot can be eliminated with the right thickness of wax combined with a condenser (or condenserS):
http://209.214.235.122/mwtest/MicrowaxAdapter_Test_Condenser.mpg

Frank, thanks for posting, I'll do something about the hotspot on my next GG, how do you like Dan's idea? (central grad filter)
Here is an image of the worst case in which you can actually see some grain of the wax (because of the remelting) in the corners:

http://s01.picshome.com/a48/roof3.jpg

>> how do you like Dan's idea?
I'm sure that would help. It would certainly be a whole lot better than doing some sort of gradient overlay in post (After Effects, Premiere, etc...) because you'd be keeping the data in-camera, as opposed to some of it being blown out.

I think the main thing is getting a surface that's diffuse enough (too thin and the center light will shine right through), and having condensers to refocus and concentrate/evenly distribute the light when it hits the intermediate screen.


As far as the remelting, I believe you are correct in what you mentioned earlier: If you can get away with having to melt the wax only once, that is the best method. If you can get a really, really clean inside glass surface (the part that makes contact w/ the wax), and use your 'cup method', along with a vibrating device, I think that's a winner.

......so I made another GG tonight. I had all the air out before I flipped the sides together, but I didn't succeed well enough in cooling the thing properly. It's a matter of seconds to put the GG between two 'cool' pieces of glass.

Besides that, it's much better, because I got the spacers thinner so I can shoot in lower light conditions. I also checked out a lens from a super8 as a very thin condenser for these shots.
Here is some footage I shot tonight with a soft 200W light:

http://doublecam.250free.com/ (first three images - takes some time to load)

That is a static shot, right Oscar? It looks pretty good in low light! Next you have to try it outdoors at night, that is the true test - but I can't believe the progress you make, my friend. It seems everything you touch turns to gold!

Thanks Leo, make that silver, I'm not done yet.
I visited the roof again:

http://s01.picshome.com/a48/shoe.jpg (you can see crackles on the side because of wrong cooling - most grain in the sky is video noise)

http://s01.picshome.com/a48/2e-1.jpg

I some circumstances, there is a little bit of grain visible in a movement, but the wax didn't cool down right (maybe that's the last bump to a golden GG if there is one...grrmff)

Looks like you're getting an image with even light distribution (ie. minimum hotspot or vignetting)

Good job! Keep the posts coming!

My cat was also on the roof, so I shot her...I mean on tape:
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/fifa2.jpg

I remelted this wax-GG tonight, but it didn't work out. I'll start on a brand new one this weekend. With the lens from the super8 I've been using as condenser, the vignetting is gone, but not the real 'hotspot' with extreme light. I think a combination of the (very very thin) condenser and Dan's central grad filter would be perfect.

I have shoot Felix (my cat) and he did not seem to mind too much... (nor get impressed by Z1 and MPIC and all my efforts....all the same... ;-)<
The image is beautifull, Oscar.

What part of the lens did you use from the Super 8 Oscar? I have a few lying around, I might tinker if it will get me my condenser!

The super8 camera I used (i.e. never use again) had a front lens as big, maybe a bit less than the image on the GG. The lens was a zoom and when you take it apart, the back is a tube with a small lens, but the font two large lenses are usable condensers. Especially the back lens (second from the front) Good luck.
I noticed the grain is almost gone using this condenser, it seems to avoid the grain getting shadows, because the light is coming in straight.

EDIT: The hotspot as an overexposed area isn't gone with this, but the dark sides are. For the hotspot, I'll try Dan's filter.

I made a new wax GG today. After two or three miserable ones I came up with a good one, but with a tiny hair in the middle.
Despite that, I tested it and in general it turned out pretty good:

http://s01.picshome.com/a48/rollei2.jpg

Here is one zoomed in two times with the DV and shot two times (left+right) like I am doing with my double DV setup.
http://s01.picshome.com/a48/kanterbr_uhdv1b.jpg (macro shot of a small beer bottle)
So in almost HDV resolution still not much grain, although it's there in certain movements and area's. But I'm not finished yet of course....

Just a quick one for you guys:
1.open WORD, draw 10 circles, fill in with gray (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc) and print on transparent film. Cut to fit the size of your filter, or leave as square and mount on UV (or other...) Enjoy your CENTER GRAD ND (and say "buy-buy" to "hot spot")
2. Photograph the above in B/W on a medium camera and use the neg.
3. Buy it and move on. (your call)

Looks good Oscar - remember in low light for some reason there seems to be more grain visible. Dan has found a way around it and the G35 guys have too. Keep searching!

Cool... day to day its better and sharper... Love your hard work.

Thanks Daves and thanks Dan for the filter trick, I'll try it. It's like an inversed diaphragm. Maybe I can put it somewhere inside the tube, to make it in independent from the lenses you put on the adapter.
The better I can get rid of the hotspot, the thinner the wax can be. The thinner the wax, the sharper and brighter the image. That's what I've been doing these day's. I now use a wax layer as thin as the thinnest tape I can find.

That looks very nice Oscar!

I want to see footage :D

Oscar: Good job!

Bear in mind that using a ND grad filter is still just a trick. I suggest trying to keep as much light as possible and get an even distribution using the right thickness of wax combined with condensers.

If you do decide to make your own homemade ND grad filter and you want to be more precise, take a framegrab from your camera pointed at an out-of-focus white wall. Bring that in Word or Photoshop and place the various grey circles accordingly.

Footage Jim? Rain on leaves: http://s01.picshome.com/a48/rain.jpg

Frank, you're right, the condenser I'm using now is very very good. (very thin too, so not much extra space and weight) So I'm happy with that for testing right now.
I've been trying a new technique yesterday, but didn't work just yet. I used wax used by goldsmiths, which are wax plates at about 0,6mm thickness. I put it between the glass and melt it with a weight on top. I didn't get bubbles or dust, but the structure wasn't right. It would be the easiest method if it worked, so I'll try it again.
Frank, Jim, are either one of you still waxing anything besides your hair? Did you get similar results, I can't seem to find much footage of your tests.

Waxing my hair... that's good.

I don't have footage up because I never got to a place where the wax surpassed what I'm getting with 3 micron aluminum ox. Frank has posted some stills that made me a believer, but I've yet to see actual moving footage from a wax adapter (under a variety of conditions, not just indoors under optimal lighting) that was really convincing. And the process of obtaining a hair free, abnormality free wax layer thin enough to produce excellent results proved so elusive that I gave up.

I've been shooting with my aluminum ox setup for a few months now. Give me some time and I'll post full res DV footage from that as a point of comparison.

- jim

<<I've yet to see actual moving footage from a wax adapter >>

Didn't you see the Guerilla35 footage? (I'm joking because we don't know if it is wax and the footage is compressed.)

I'm making an improvised rail to put the tube on with the test wax GG moving steadily and see what happens. I'm sure there will be a bit of a vage structure visible, but I know I can get it better. It has a lot to do with cooling techniques.